CA held that the section imposed a vicarious liability would mean that the company has the immediate responsibility to provide evidence of precautionary measures had been taken to ensure safety even though workforce at the lower level did not take reasonable practicable measures. Strict Liability Cases. Mens rea was required for this part of the actus reus, and he had the necessary intention. Most strict liability offences are regulatory in nature. example of words and punctuation. There was no finding that D had acted dishonestly, improperly or even negligently. D1 was in a back room of the premises at the time; D2 was not on the premises. An Invitation to Treat is simply an invitation to people to make an offer. The clothing shop may be liable under S.1 of this Act which states that it an offence to apply a false trade description to any goods or supplies or offers to supply any goods to which a false trade description is applied in the course of a trade or business. It is now a statutory offence, and Parliament has continued it as a strict liability offence. In strict liability offences there may be no blameworthiness on the part of the defendant. The Divisional Court held that the offence did not require any mens rea. You should not treat any information in this essay as being authoritative. Conviction was quashed because of the difficulty in securing the controlling mind which was also the same problem in P&O European Ferries case. Southwark LBC v Mills. Despite this, the House of Lords still held that the offence, The type of crime and whether it is truly criminal are linked to another condition, laid down by the case of Gammon (1984) that is the question of whether the, crime involves an issue of social concern. In the case of Alphacell v Woodward [1972], the defendants of a company were accused of causing pollution to a river. Mr Hobday was aware of the obligation not to sell lottery tickets to under age purchasers. The proof of only actus reus may apply to less serious crimes whereas mens rea is not required in many commercial agreements. This case involved s 58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968, which provides that no person shall supply specified medicinal products except in accordance with a prescription given by an appropriate medical practitioner. In the c The defendant knew that she was in the possession of her father, but believed (on reasonable grounds) that she was 18. HL stated that if reasonable people would regard the matter as something which the defendant had done, despite whether he or she knew of his or her actions, then mens rea is not required. An alternative to lists of cases, the Precedent Map makes it easier to establish which ones may be of most relevance to your research and prioritise further reading. Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah. Suppose a person was found drunk in a restaurant and was asked to leave. Hence, conviction was quashed. Day J justified his decision in Sherras by pointing to the fact that although s 16(2) did not include the word knowingly, s 16(1) did, for the offence of knowingly harbours or knowingly suffers to remain on his premises any constable during any part of the time appointed for such constable being on duty. The first rule is that where an Act of Parliament includes words indicating mens rea (eg knowingly, intentionally, maliciously or permitting), the offence requires mens rea and is not one of strict liability. The starting point in each case is always the samenamely, there is a presumption that included in the ingredients of the offence under consideration is the element of mens rea. In these cases it also had to be proved that the doing of the actus reus was voluntary. ", "If any requirement or restriction imposed by regulations made under section 12 is contravened in relation to the promotion of a lottery that forms part of the National Lottery. The corporation may only be personally or directly liable for their own actions by distinguishing the individual with controlling mind. Despite this the House of Lords held that the Divisional Court was right to direct the magistrates to convict D. The pharmacists had supplied the drugs without a genuine prescription, and this was enough to make them guilty of the offence. Only three common law offences have been held to be ones of strict liability. Regulations, covering health and safety matters in relation to food, drink, pollution, building, and road use are issues of social concern but other issues such as possession of. 3. The modern type of strict liability offence was first created in the mid-nineteenth century. Second, although the maximum sentence for conviction on indictment is two years, a fine, or both, those penalties apply to all persons who are guilty of any offence under the section including the promoter. They had told their staff not to sell tickets to anyone under 16 years. The judge, Parke B, ruled that he was guilty even if a nice chemical analysis was needed to discover that the tobacco was adulterated. Recent cases, including the Court of Appeal's judgment in Bou-Simon v BGC Brokers LP and the (as yet unreported) case of Harrow LBC v Engie Regeneration (Apollo) Ltd (2018) (TCC), provide a useful reminder of the strict constraints on implying terms into a commercial contract. The courts will always start with this presumption, but if they decide that the offence does not require mens rea for at least part of the actus reus, then the offence is one of strict liability. At page 149 Lord Reid said this: "It is firmly established by a host of authorities that mens rea is an essential ingredient of every offence unless some reason can be found for holding that it is not necessary. I say 'must have been' because it is a universal principle that if a penal provision is reasonably capable of two interpretations, that interpretation which is most favourable to the accused must be adopted. Apart from insanity, therefore, the defendant's state of mind would cease to be relevant. In that case a poem had been published in Gay News describing homosexual acts done to the body of Christ after his crucifixion and also describing his alleged homosexual practices during his lifetime. Pharmaceutical Society of GB v Storkwain Ltd (1986). A . The other case is Winzar v Chief Constable of Kent, The Times, 28 March 1983; Co/1111/82 (Lexis), QBD. The feminist movement in Psychology was important because it ____________. These are. Such offences are very rare. Lord Russell said: Why then should the House, faced with a deliberate publication of that which a jury with every justification has held to be a blasphemous libel, consider that it should be for the prosecution to prove, presumably beyond reasonable doubt, that the accused recognised and intended it to be such The reason why the law considers that the publication of a blasphemous libel is an offence is that the law considers that such publications should not take place. Greenwich Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc and ors; Ch D (Blackburne J) 31 Mar 1999. "The climate of both parliamentary and judicial opinion has been growing less favourable to the recognition of absolute offences over the last few decades; a trend to which, section 8 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, "whether the offences charged were offences of strict liability or required proof of, At page 14 Lord Scarman summarised in five propositions the law relevant to that, Harrow London Borough Council v. Shah and Another, Request a trial to view additional results, Bhola (Customs and Excise Officer II) v Canserve Caribbean Ltd, Nurse and Gibbs, Lawmakers, Law Lords and Legal Fault: Two Tales from the (Thames) River Bank: Sexual Offences Act 2003; R v G and Another, Regulatory Offences and Reverse Burdens: The Licensing Approach, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), Journal of Criminal Law, The Nbr. As a result, 190 passengers and crew were killed. In Gammon (Hong Kong) Ltd v Attorney-General ofHong Kong (1984) 2 All ER 503, the appellants had been charged with deviating from building work in a material way from the approved plan, contrary to the Hong Kong Building Ordinances. Storkwain prince hibbert harrow LBC v shah and shah cundy v le corqe callow v tillstone Mens rea need not to be proved. Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen [1963] AC 160 in which the Privy Council considered Wright J's formulation of the principle in Sherras v. De Rutzen [1895] 1 QB 918, Lord Scarman identified the issue in the appeal as being "whether the offences charged were offences of strict liability or required proof of mens rea as to their essential facts". In Hibbert the defendant met a girl aged 14 on the street. In Harrow LBC v Shah and Shah the defendants were charged under s 13(1)(c) of the National Lottery etc. If they do, then plainly, in order to prove a contravention of regulation 3, all that is required of the prosecution is proof of the sale of a national lottery ticket to a particular person and proof that at the time of the sale that person was under 16. In the case of Alphacell v Woodward [1972], the defendants of a company were accused of causing pollution to a river. Do you have a 2:1 degree or higher? This is a very important tool in determining whether he or she is liable for a persons death. The defendant was charged with selling intoxicating liquor to a drunken person. (a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum; (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment not exceeding two years, to a fine or to both.". The maximum of two years cannot therefore be said to be tailormade for a contravention of regulation 3 by a shopkeeper. Act 1993 and the relevant Regulations. -punctuation helps create meaning - lack of it can be a problem. The defendant is liable because they have been found in a certain situation. She had no mens rea. In Callow v Tillstone [1900], a butcher was convicted because he sold meat in poor condition even though the meat was certified as safe by a vet before the butcher sells them and regardless of how diligent he was ensuring the safety of the meat. For s 16(1) the prosecution had to prove that the defendant knew the constable was on duty, while for s 16(2) the prosecution did not have to prove knowledge, but it was open to the defendant to prove that he did not know. On their appeal to the House of Lords, the Law Lords held that it was not necessary to prove that the defendants intended to blaspheme. Disclaimer: This essay has been written by a law student and not by our expert law writers. An example of this is the Contempt of Court Act 1981 where s 1 sets out the strict liability rule. schedules. Despite this she was found guilty under the Aliens Order 1920 of being an alien to whom leave to land in the United Kingdom has been refused who was found in the United Kingdom. Subjects | Law Notes | Criminal Law. Both of these involve contraventions of the Licensing Act 1872. Alternatively, the company can be sued under contract law if there is a reward stated on the advert whereby Oliver had performed the specified actions which would automatically be an acceptance. He had no intention to do a wrongful act; he acted in the bona fide belief that the constable was off duty. The forgery was sufficient to deceive the pharmacists. The police found cannabis there. The respondents were proprietors of Woods Newsagents at Uxbridge Road, Harrow. The argument most frequently advanced by the courts for imposing strict liability is that it is . In R v P&O European Ferries (Dover) Ltd [1991], a ships officer fell asleep while on duty and failed to ensure the ferry doors were closed before it set sail. This is important as, if the defence of mistake is available, the defendant will be acquitted when he made an honest mistake. He claimed that she told him that she was 16 and had consented to the sexual activity. Cundy v Le Cocq (1884) 13 QBD 207 Divisional Court The appellant was convicted of unlawfully selling alcohol to an intoxicated person under s.13 Licensing Act 1872. It can be argued that such a defence should always be available for strict liability offences. Facts. First, whereas in subsection (1) paragraphs (a) and (b) the liability of the promoter and the promoter's, directors, managers and the like is tempered by the provision of a statutory defence, in subsection (1)(c) the liability of 'any other person' who was a party to the contravention of the regulation is not expressed to be subject to a statutory defence. In addition there were clear notices up in the shop about the rules, and staff were frequently reminded that they must not sell lottery tickets to underage customers. -SL case under national lottery act. D1 and D2 were charged with selling a lottery ticket to a person under 16, contrary to s 13(1)(c) of the National Lottery etc. It is difficult to reconcile this decision with the decision in Cundy. The Divisional Court held the offence to be one of strict liability. AQA AS La w 239 15 Introduction to criminal liability AQA AS La w 239 liability offences effectively is Harrow LBC v Shah (1999), in which a shopkeeper was convicted of the offence of selling a lottery ticket to a minor child, although he thought, reasonably, that the boy was at least 16 years old. 1 b). In that belief he accordingly served him with liquor. Where the particular offence has no words of intention, but other sections in the Act do, then it is likely that this offence is a strict liability offence. No due diligence defence will be available. In the absence of a clear indication in the Act that an offence is intended to be an absolute offence, it is necessary to go outside the Act and examine all relevant circumstances in order to establish that this must have been the intention of Parliament. He was convicted, as he had the intention to remove the girl from the possession of her father. His conviction was upheld by the CoA. Copyright 2013. This legislation will be able to prosecute employers who may be held directly responsible for deaths at work due to gross negligence. technology developed exclusively by vLex editorially enriches legal information to make it accessible, with instant translation into 14 languages for enhanced discoverability and comparative research. Harrow LBC V Shah 1999. She did not want to return to the United Kingdom. D is liable if he voluntarily did the actus reus . In Tesco v Brent [1974], Tesco was convicted for strict liability offence as to selling videos to under-age children. He understood that if he was in any doubt about the age of the purchaser he should ask for proof of identity and that if still in doubt he should then refer the matter to the respondents or refuse to sell. Misspossiblyright. Ben_Snaith. Where D has taken all possible care not to do the forbidden act or omission. Thisapproach is likely to continue: Harrow LBC v Shah, v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1985] AC 1but also more recently in Blake [1997] 1 All ER 963; Harrow London BoroughCouncil v Shah, to as public welfare or regulatory offences.15 Pearks, Gunston & Tee Ltd vWard [1902] 2 KB 1 at 11; London Borough of Harrow vShah, vigilance on the part of potential offenders would be promoted(see, for similar arguments, Harrow London Borough Council vShah, This is a prosecutor's appeal by way of case stated against a decision of the Harrow Justices on 30th September 1998 dismissing informations laid against the respondents, Dilip Shah and Bharti Shah, alleging a contravention of section 13 of the National Lottery Act 1993 and regulation 3 of the. liability offences. The defendant supplied drugs to somebody who was using a forged prescription, they were charged under s58(2) of the Medicines Act 1968 for supplying drugs without a doctors prescription. A more modern example demonstrating this is Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain v Storkwain Ltd (1986) 2 All ER 635. Truly Criminal - where a crime is truly criminal there is more likely to be a presumption of MR. HARROW LBC v SHAH AND SHAH - all due diligence. The police found cannabis at the farmhouse, and the defendant was charged with being concerned in the management of premises used for the purpose of smoking cannabis resin.